The fact of the subordination in the Godhead being thus beyond controversy, we are naturally led to inquire whether, upon scriptural principles, it is not susceptible of explanation. Subordination, in general, it may be remarked, results either from voluntary cession of equality, or from inferiority of nature, or of relation. Of these, the first is altogether inapplicable to our present subject; since not only is it without sanction from the word of God, but, if the divine Subsistences were eternally coordinate, the cession of equality is as inconceivable as the cession of infinite wisdom or infinite power. Whatever exists from eternity is necessary; whatever is in the Godhead is essential; and neither can be otherwise than it is.

Our choice is, therefore, between an inferiority of nature, which is Arianism, and inferiority of relation, which is in principle the doctrine upheld in these pages. Hence to the Trinitarian there is no alternative but the admission of an eternal and divine relation between the Subsistences of the Trinity, a relation involving order; in respect of which, the FATHER is the infinite and eternal FIRST; the SON, the infinite and eternal SECOND; and the HOLY SPIRIT, the infinite and eternal

Apostle must refer to a subjection, not new in fact, but new in manifestation. This, however, cannot respect his lower nature, or his complex person; for in these his subordination to the Father is amply made known both to the church on earth and the hierarchy in heaven. It will therefore pertain to his higher nature; being, in fact, the revelation of his Godhead and of his relation to the blessed Trinity. To employ the appropriate language of Dr. J. P. Smith, he "will return to his personal station as the divine and eternal Son." (Scrip. Test., vol. iii., p. 257.) Thus will God be "all in all;" the manifestations, even of our Redeemer, being no longer as he has hitherto been known by his people, in his complex person or in his official relations, but in his sovereign and eternal Divinity. (See SHERLOCK on the Trinity, p. 175.)

THIRD. But we know of no such relation, except that expressed in the terms themselves, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and whatever arguments can be alleged against them are not less applicable to the fact of the relation itself. He who admits the latter cannot rationally object to the appropriateness of these expressions, or to the doctrines which they involve.

These remarks may assist in showing the dangers to a correct faith in the doctrine of the Trinity, attendant upon the denial of our Lord's eternal filiation. If the unity of the Godhead is maintained to the obscuring of personal distinction, Sabellianism is a natural result. If the personal distinction is insisted on, apart from the eternal relation, the theory amounts to Tritheism; while if the scriptural subordination is admitted, without the belief of relative order, Arianism is inevitable. The result of our argument is, that the terms, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, on the one hand, teach the personal distinctions in the Trinity; and, on the other, equally describe the mutual relation of the divine Subsistences. These distinctions are not of name, or mode, or office, but of fact and nature. The Father is really and by nature a Father; the Son really and by nature a Son; the Holy Spirit really and by nature a Holy Spirit. The relations thus implied are proper and divine. The Father, as God, begets; the Son, as God, is begotten; the Holy Ghost, as God, proceeds. And, as natural and divine, so are these distinctions and relations, eternal. The Father is an eternal Father; the Son an eternal Son; the Holy Spirit an eternal Holy Spirit. The maintenance of personal and divine distinction is our protection from Sabellianism; that of proper and eternal relation preserves us from Tritheism; while the assertion of consubstantiality, joined with relative order, is our defence against Arianism. There is between the whole a combination so strong, and yet so nicely adjusted, that

while each contributes to the establishment of the rest, the disruption of one endangers all the others. Our conclusion, therefore, is, that there is no security against fatal heresy, except in the belief that our Lord Jesus Christ is THE ETERNAL SON OF GOD.

NOTE (S), p. 383.

The Paternity and Filiation in the Godhead precisely cor

relative.

THAT the terms Father and Son are correlative, and that the relation expressed in the one cannot exist without that suggested by the other, are truths all but self-evident. To these may be added a third and consequent proposition, not less obvious, which is of some importance to the subject of the present section. It is, that in the Bible the sense of each is homogeneous. If the one be literal, so must the other; if this be figurative, so must that. The mode in which we account for the designation, "Father,” on the one hand, must also explain the title, "Son," on the other; and the correct reason for our Lord's being called the "Son," will equally determine the sense of the term, "Father." Here, therefore, we find a just and available test for the various theories on the filiation of Christ. An adequate examination of the whole, or even of the larger proportion, would be out of place. Yet a few remarks on the principal may assist to show the correctness, and to illustrate the value, of this canon.

Let it be supposed, for example, that our Lord sustains the title "Son" in consequence of his miraculous conception, then will the first person of the Trinity be styled "Father," to express his agency in the production of the humanity of Christ. But whatever may have been his share in this great work, it is on all hands admitted that the actual impregnator of the virgin's womb was the Holy Spirit. To him alone, therefore, with this reference, can the title "Father" be correctly applied. This fact has been already noted, CHAP. II., sect. iv., p. 127, above.

Let us take another view. The title in question is assumed to be expressive of the Messiahship. In this case the first person of the Trinity will be described as the Father, on account of his having anointed our Lord. But here, again, the immediate agent was the Holy Spirit. And, besides, though it were admitted that the Christ, as a person of singular dignity, might, by a figure of speech, be styled "the Son of God," yet it is

inconsistent with the ordinary notions of paternity that such an act as the emission of the Holy Spirit should cause the first divine Subsistence to be eminently distinguished as the Father. So far as we can perceive, there is no connexion between the anointing of our Lord and the idea of paternity.

Again, let it be supposed that the filiation of Christ was expressive in general of his mediatorial work and dignity; and the divine paternity will then describe the designation to the mediatorship. But this theory supplies no distinction between the relation of the first and second persons of the Trinity, and that of the first and the third. With this exposition, for any thing that appears to the contrary, the first divine Subsistence might be described as the Father of the Holy Ghost as truly as of our Lord. In respect of each was there designation, mission, gift, subordination; and it remains to be shown that there was any peculiarity in the circumstances of Christ which, with this hypothesis, renders the idea of filiation more appropriate than in the case of the blessed Spirit.

These remarks will suffice for our purpose. The reader who wishes to pursue the investigation will find that the same objections, or objections equally formidable, may be alleged against every exposition of the title "Son," as applied exclusively to our Lord's complex person. In dismissing the subject we have only to observe that in their converse form these views present an argument on the general question of no inconsiderable force. For if the paternity of the first person in the Godhead does not result from the incarnation, the anointing, or the mediatorship of Christ, or from any other economical act, which, it is apprehended, will admit of ample proof, nothing seems more conclusive than that neither can the filiation predicated of our Lord himself be referred to any of these causes.